Study Claims Bovine Growth Hormone Good for Environment
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada 
on 10. 1.08
Image: Cow with mastitis (Monica Morgan on Flickr)
Just because the cow moos, doesn’t mean that it’s over. Thanks to giant chains such as Wal-Mart, Safeway and Kroger announcing recently that they would no longer carry milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), Monsanto – biotech giant and exploiter of genes extraordinaire – then announced in early August that it would be selling the rights to its Posilac brand of rBGH.
Commentators were celebrating prematurely, until Monsanto announced that Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical giant with even more money than the GE multinational, would be snapping Posilac up for $300 million. Now comes the predictable public relations spin– that bovine growth hormone is good for the environment.
Really?
In a peer-reviewed, but rather questionable study just put out by a team of scientists, it is claimed that rBGH “to improve productive efficiency and to have less negative effects on the environment than conventional dairying.” Mostly, because the dairy industry could milk less cows, use less land, feed, etc. for more milk.
OK – what about animal and human health concerns?
Forget the fact that a combination of studies that have shown bovine growth hormone is linked to a 40 percent decrease in cow fertility. Forget the fact that rBGH allows cows to be over-milked as they produce up to ten times more milk than normal, translating to a 25 percent increase in mastitis (udder infections that can cause bits of pus to go into the milk) – which means that diary farms have to inject massive amounts of antibiotics into dairy cows. Forget even the fact that millions of consumers – thanks to Monsanto’s fight to keep rBGH-milk unlabelled – drink this kind of milk unknowingly.
We’re all for studies, except that this one comes with a “conflict of interest” statement in the footnotes of the front page, stating that one of the study’s four authors is a full-time employee and stakeholder in Monsanto, while another is a Monsanto consultant. Even the peer reviewer, David H. Baker, an animal-health scientist at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has connections with Eli Lilly as its senior scientist from 1965 to 1967.
On top of all this, forget the fact that this kind of slippery “science,” backed by the corporate interests poised to profit most from it, is part of the same revolving door system that allowed rBGH to be approved by the FDA without a full long-term health assessment in the first place. In light of all this and other contrary evidence, even if they proclaim that it’s good for human health and the environment, there's no amount of deceptive “science” that will make it seem anything other than another case of washing it green.
::Gristmill via Environment Report
Related Links on Bovine Growth Hormone and Monsanto
Monsanto Dumping Bovine Growth Hormone
Wal-Mart To Monsanto 'No Thanks For The Bovine Growth Hormone
Monstrous Harvest: "The World According to Monsanto" Movie Review
Monsanto and Michael Pollan Talk About Creating a World That Can Feed Itself
Astroturf Alert: Afact Fights Absence Labeling
rBGH: Anything but Green (Food & Water Watch)
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Keep Your Reusable Bags Clean and Safe
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- The Happiest, Greenest Place on Earth—Seriously!
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- Sleep In Late to Lose Weight
People power really must step in to put rBGH out of our misery; for ever.
It's time to boycott Eli Lilly... unless people think the FDA will start to do the job it's supposed to do...
everyone in CA vote for prop 2! Get those animals some freakin room!
the depths these people will stoop to, putting a green washing on it doesn't matter it's still UNnatural!
Thanks for the excellent article - unfortunately the thoughts and feelings it brings to the fore I can't thank you for, nor include in reasonable comments.
drink soy milk or other great tasting alternatives!
Then it doesn't matter what new chemical they are going to put into their milk.
It's soy juice, not milk.
Interesting article, but I've got to call it on one thing -- claiming some evil conflict of interest because the reviewer worked for Eli Lily 41 years ago ("1965 to 1967") is pretty out of whack. Particularly when the article appeared in print a month before the rBGH purchase, which means that the review process probably took place many months to a year before. There are plenty of bogus things that happen in this world - crying wolf over the editor's two-year stint right out of his Ph.D. dilutes an otherwise useful observation about possible bias.
About 50 years ago a small dairy farmer could make it with a herd of under 50 cows. As noted earlier, the Nixon administration told farmers to get big or get out. With the present price controls, government intervention, high property taxes and high feed costs there is little a dairy can do to stay in business.
This is going to cost consumers $$$ to fix.
Pay more for milk.
Buy organic milk, or from local farms where you know what the dairy farmer thinks about this. Organic rules don't allow this hormone treatment.
As for soy milk (or soy juice) you also put money in Monsanto's pockets if you don't buy organic, as most US soybeans are genetically modified, patented, and then sprayed with (Monsanto's) weed-killer Roundup.
As I've stated before, the best way to cut dairy consumption is to get the government to stop subsidizing it. I know, they do this so that poor people can afford milk, but government subsidies are doing their part in destroying our economy. And yes, I understand that many of you want subsidies for clean energy, but dirty energy gets a lot more breaks then clean. If all subsidies and tax breaks were eliminated it would make green living more appealing to a lot more people.
Just wanted to thank for a good article.
Give up milk.
Milk is for babies, and cow's milk is for calves.
Seems pretty simple.
The dairy industry isn't subsidized by the government in any meaningful way. On the contrary, as the price for milk is set by the government, it keeps the price of milk artificially low, Most dairy farmers would be more than happy to let market forces determine the price of milk, as they might be able to make a profit.
Bristle at the aesthetics if you want, but more milk from fewer cows means less manure (e.g. nitrates) eutrophying water ways and less grain that has to be planted (and grown with plenty of fossil fuels to produce fertilizer and move vehicles). There's simply not enough productive land in the U.S. to do everything organically - even if we could magically lift all those meadow mansions off of the deep valley soils they've ruined, and even if we could convince a large part of our population to give up their ipods and vacations and go back to farming in order to take care of all that land without tractors...